Sardis? a multi century existence ?

THE PRESSURE COOKER ! of faith, Spirit led 

Faith does not operate in a realm that is humanly possible,!!! There is no glory for God  in which is humanly possible!!!! . Faith begins where man,s power ends !!!!  

WE ALL NEED TO LEARN THAT WHAT BELOW IS ALL ABOUT BLESSINGS 

If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference! 

If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95 percent of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference!

Foreword for Stephen Crosby’s How ‘New’ Is the New Covenant? still lost???

It is safe to say that the root of most errors in believers’ minds is a failure to appreciate the reality and finality of Christ in the New Covenant.  Too many are trying to function with a mixture of law and grace, letter and Spirit and type/shadow versus substance. So much practice in the history of the visible church has taken its cue from the Old Covenant and not the New.

Take tithing as a glaring example. For centuries the mainstream church has relied on the members giving their tithe in order to finance the institution’s needs. The proof-texts for enforcing tithing were primarily drawn from the Old Testament. There were many instances of and statements about giving in the New Testament, but tithing was never mentioned as a benchmark.

In fact, here a whole new way of looking at giving is found -- a way that has nothing to do with percentage points, a way that has to do with Christ’s example of self-sacrifice, and a way that simply says,

“Give, each according to their ability.”

But most church peoples’ consciences are weighed down with a percentage-driven method of giving that has nothing to do with the revelation found in the New Covenant.

Hence, there is a crying need for Christ’s people to see that they are living in Christ, not under Moses; that they are to walk in the Spirit, not follow the letter of the law; that they are married to Jesus, not the Torah.

They must understand that the better New Covenant is in force, not the obsolete Old Covenant. Stephen Crosby’s How ‘New’ Is the New Covenant? Provides a deep breath of Christ-centered air in our law-choked religious

atmosphere.

The author’s chapters and appendices on the New Covenant and the Torah are must reading for today’s believers. They cut through eons of misunderstandings, and shed needed light on why the New Covenant sealed and inaugurated by Christ’s blood is so vital for understanding where we stand as the New Creation and the New Humanity. Those who read How ‘New’ Is the New Covenant? should see law-rooted scales fall from their eyes, resulting in a clearer view of Jesus’ glory.

-- Jon Zens, author of ‘This Is My Beloved Son, Hear Him’: The Foundation of New Covenant Ethics and Ecclesiology, and editor of Searching Together since 1978

Addressinsg the witch craft Paul refereed to in the book of Galatians

By "witchcraft" Mark does not have in view wiccans gathering in the woods. Rather, he is concerned "to show how the church has allowed certain people to gain prominence within its ranks who do not belong there, and the terrible cost that is being paid because of it."

 Thus, the author sees witchcraft as connected to the desire for Power and Control, which is then expressed through Rebellion. "Witchcraft," he says, "is the attempted usurpation of God's power and control over nature, over circumstances, and over people." At the heart of witchcraft, then, "is the acquisition and use of power." Galatians in the Neb really nails that box shut  thanks...as does the kj3  young literal. 

Clement, most famous of the Alexandrian college faculty and a teacher of Origen, boasted that he would not teach Christianity unless it were mixed with pagan philosophy

 (Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant, ca. 1890. Reprint: Teach Services, Brushton (NY) 1994, p. 47).

interesting they used that so openly..here. 

I developed a great deal of respect for the Quakers  in their honesty ,George fox was a real truth seeker,  in many ways   he did not gobble  the bad koolaid of his day. I deeply respected those who stood for the truth did not lay them selves  inb silence   I have great deal of respect for those doing so today 

This exposes of religion is in no way designed or intended to impinge upon the reality of Christianity. Careful distinction between religion and Christianity must be made. 

As stated in the beginning of this article, Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior unto the glory of God. 

 it;s life long   struggle to be undone and remade a process  the arrogance of legalism laid waste to real faith in many cases . it;s created systems rules and added so much it will take God a few more minutes to figure what they thought he said,, verses what he did say,  in his people day to day a real missing link to  this day  2 Corinthians helps us  to see in the new  ways exorbitance  in truth over the ole dogmatized system,   that no one could keep,  it;s own demise came into being for it  ...

Religion is the man-made aberration that attempts to impose absolutism, authoritarianism and activism upon other men. JF  

It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­ to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion! The apostle Paul refers to it as "self-made religion" (Colossians 2:23), and goes on to indicate that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, Paul is saying that "religion is of no value against man's sinfulness." In fact, religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction.


Religion is essentially idolatry.
 Men worship their man-made formations and structures ­ their ideological idols formed in the concrete of inflexible minds. When the apostle Paul came to Athens (Acts 17:22), he observed their idols and exclaimed, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects." The Greek word that Paul used for "religious" literally means "to have great respect for demons." that inldes allthe stuff mixed match through the alchemicl world  processing that goes on often unabated. 

   To document that God hates religion, note the following passages of Scripture:

"...every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods." (Deuteronomy 12:31)
"I have had enough of burnt offerings...Bring your worthless offerings no longer...I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts; they have become a burden to Me... So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you... I will not listen..." (Isaiah 1:10-15)
    "I hate, I reject your festivals; nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies...take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps." (Amos 5:21-24)

 These passages bear out the fact that God hates religion, and all of its procedures and programs; rituals and regulations.

    Religion is inevitably the result of man taking that which is of God and forming it, formulating it, in such a way that men end up "playing God." Men can form idols out of wood or stone in an attempt to represent God, or they can formulate ideological idols (belief-systems, doctrinal definitions, theological theses). The men who thus form and formulate become the "chief priests" of the new religion because they are regarded as knowing the most about what God is like, and well they should for they formed "it."

    There are three features which seem to be basic to all forms of man-made religion. Religion involves absolutism, authoritarianism and activism. 
Now there is nothing wrong with absolutes, authority or activity. God is absolute, authoritative and active. But when any man or group of men attempts to establish themselves as the arbiters or regulators of God's absoluteness, authority or activity, they then begin to "play god," and religion is the result as they impose their perspective of absolute, authority and activity on others.

Most men cannot accept that the Infinite God is bigger than their finite ability to understand. So we set about to reduce God to fit within our rationalistic and intellectual reasonings.
We reduce God to fit within our mental "box," then we nail it shut, construct our creed, and absolutely affirm that we have God figured out.  scary

We have reduced God to no bigger than our cranial cavity!!!.
    Religion advocates the absolutism of a particular belief-system. We formulate our doctrine, our theology, and demand that others affirm it absolutely as we do ­ no variation; no freedom of thought or opinion; no doubt (for doubt would indicate that one does not believe it absolutely.)
    Such absolutism is the basis of "fundamentalism." 
Fundamentalism is a religious idolatry that tends to worship a particular formulation of fixed fundamentals of faith. These fundamentals usually include both the detailed doctrines of a belief-system, as well as the meticulously prescribed behavior patterns of an ethical-system. and often more emotionalism than truth ..

this holds true in all the fantasy based faith even the  stretched twisted  Christian versions   where extreme legalism is employed instead of  assisting in  the conflict  destroy one  another ,  thanks 

Such religious authoritarianism creates a "fantasy-bond" of the people toward their so-called "priests." There is a projected idealization of the authorities as being especially close to God -- almost "gods" themselves. 

The religious authorities then exploit the people, utilizing superstition and fear to control people's thinking and behavior by shame, guilt and threatened loss of identity or eternal destiny.

    Religious authorities must create a sense of direction and momentum for the people; a sense of doing something and going somewhere. 

There must be a program of activity that will keep people "involved," feeling that they are meaningfully expending their lives and energy for God's "cause." This is also fueled by the self-serving purpose of financing and perpetuating the religious system.

"Clergy" and "Laity"

In the New Testament, the Greek word kleros can mean "lot" (as in "casting lots") or "that which is assigned by lot, portion, share."⁸ Paul wrote that God has enabled Christians "to share in the inheritance (klerou) of the saints in the light" (Col. 1:12, NRSV). Christians are "heirs (kleronomoi) according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29, NRSV). In this sense, all Christians constitute "the clergy."⁹

The Greek word laos means "people." All Christians collectively make up the laos or people of God;¹⁰ it is a title of honor. In this sense, all Christians constitute "the laity." Thus, in earliest Christianity we do not find a distinction between "clergy" and "laity." According to the New Testament, all Christians are the people of God, heirs of salvation.

The Greek word for "laity" is laikos, from the term laos. The New Testament never uses this term. Remarkably, we find it only once in all the Christian literature prior to the third century.¹¹ In the fortieth chapter of his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome (writing at the tail end of the first century) illustrates the need for church order by appealing to Old Covenant protocol. God's "peculiar services," he writes, "are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen" (1 Cl. 40:5). Although he used the term "laity" or "laymen" in describing the Old Covenant system, however, he did not use it in reference to Christians. Nor did he conceive of a class of Christians who are not actively involved in ministry (1 Cl. 41:1). The existence of a Christian "laity" was unknown to Clement.

 Where else could one find a model of church government which exalted a priesthood over the rest of the people? In practical terms, this meant a resounding denial of the priesthood of all believers and the exaltation of Old Covenant principles in clear opposition to the New Covenant. Is it any wonder that so many churches deny the grace of God at so many points?

By the latter half of the second century, then, the seeds of the hierarchy had been planted. Until then, the job of running a congregation had been a purely part-time job; the elders, deacons and even early bishops all had other professions, aside from their ecclesiastical positions. There was no such thing as “clergy,” as a profession. they were servants of love and seniors the word Tyndale uses and would be killed over,,... 

 I added a map  of the post modern  Sardis by adding this write, it;s deeply informative  it provides the mirror  image of  both realities as hand maidens!!!!   

 From bacon to dee,  and forward  etc the secret  societies are one . within  sir ... have ruled down through centuries often in impunity 

 sardis is great read and will help you s se out side the programmed mind  like fox I se each person as his temple, and able to  perhaps wonders through the power of the holy spirit, remember we now become the new testament book our lives are to be spirit led  2 Corinthians 3 tells ti is the people of spirit now, the love is fulfilled in Christ we may fight many battles  inside and out withe great loust etc  he has for given us we do not have nail Christ up daily anymore or torch people because they  tell the truth   or  not sin as we sin ahahaha  amazing    just got to  go Jesus for forgiveness endeavor walk  away and live by the spirit  though faith ..

 Getting out of the sardis alive  to live for Christ !!!

https://books.google.com/books?id=E4sd0BfAW1IC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=the+five+secret+societies+that+escaped+sardis&source=bl&ots=sAchGvdQKj&sig=bbyxWLAxk4YNqxQEFm3QXnR3xEI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4gLnx-vTMAhUCez4KHaVVBscQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=the%20five%20secret%20societies%20that%20escaped%20sardis&f=false

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth!" Revelation 3:15-16 

Despot's path of deception

Legalism empowers DEMONS in your life!

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of (legal dogma) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having disarmed principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Our battle against the demonic realm is a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual laws that we have been equipped by the Holy Spirit of God.

Legalism is the flesh trying to attain spiritual truths. Legalism only keeps a believer bound and subject to the flesh. Nothing pleases the devil more than legalism! Almost every attack against the spiritual gospel in the New Testament was an attempt by the devil to bring legalism into the assembly , and by that, giving him power over the spiritual children of God by making them subject to their own flesh, through legalism.

Inside red wardrobe

 For the most of intense searches on origins their actual players  of both global and Soviet involvements  in the dark arts those suing them to this day the read is deeply extensive and well over looked  through our effort to keep people unaware  of these serious truths , enjoy the plunge  for truth...

https://books.google.com/books?id=Kumg5iYYkWkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 The things we did not know, or were ever told the truth about sad mess  many have suffered in  to this day. 

Inside their world and the one we racing for ?

fs 

Hope

GOD GAVE US CHRIST,AND FAIR WARNING !!!!




Romans 1:26 - 32
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. 

 They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.  They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. mercy lord !!!

SPIRIT LED OR DOUBT LADEN

https://books.google.com/books?id=XO4pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=origins+of+the+king+craft+and+priest+craft+come+from&source=bl&ots=mihOope-HH&sig=ACfU3U1neHtmaFCW2MV53Xri6juPfK8POA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2jtqarr3lAhWJjVkKHY6LDGIQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=origins%20of%20the%20king%20craft%20and%20priest%20craft%20come%20from&f=false

 Those who were looking in the depth of origins forms  here is the site and well worth  the read,,,, for those seeking the deep truths,  ENJOY




 Chapter 4

What Went Wrong?

Living Organism to Lifeless Institution

We have seen that Christ imparted to His followers by word and deed that in His kingdom there was to be no hierarchy, no power-plays and no titles. Instead, there was to be mutual foot-washing, modeled by the Lord Himself.

Then it was shown that Jesus is building His ekklesia on earth. Christ told the disciples that when His resurrected body went back to the Father, they would continue His body (His life) all over the earth. They were to continue His legacy of a kingdom in which all were brothers and sisters, and no one was “over” others.

But the history books reveal that something went wrong, dreadfully wrong. Before we get into some details, here’s a snapshot of some key moments when what Jesus initiated was completely derailed.

**Around AD 150 Clement made a distinction between “priest” and “laity.” This set in motion the divide of “clergy” and “laity,” the “ordained” and the “parishioners.”

**Around AD 250 the practice of “one-bishop rule” took root, and each bishop’s rule was defined territorially (see Judy Schindler, Part 2, Chapter 2).

**Around AD 325 the emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. From this point on, the civil rulers would have a heavy presence in what occurred in the visible church.

Thus, what began as a Christ-driven, Spirit-led formation of ekklesias morphed into a power-based, hierarchy-fed institution.

The expression of Christ through gifts of the Spirit functioned in a beautiful way in the early church. There was no "institution" at the beginning.The "institution" started taking shape from AD 150 onwards. As this unfolded, spiritual gifts became unnecessary, for the "institution" saw itself as the dispenser of grace. This is not to say there were no spiritual gifts anywhere, but it is to say that as the "institution" became more and more powerful, the Holy Spirit became less and less a part of the mix.

The Striking Features of the First Century Ekklesia

First century pagan religions and Judaism all had these basic characteristics: (1) specific experts who led the religious practices; (2) specific places (temples) where the people came to practice the religion; and (3) specific religious rituals that were carried out at designated ways and times.

It is precisely these three marks that were absent from the early church. They functioned with no “clergy” (all of the saints were “clergy,” the Lord’s “inheritance”), no religious buildings (they met “home to home”), and no set rituals (“each one of you has a song, a teaching, etc.”).

However, as was mentioned above, this simplicity was compromised in the Second and Third Centuries with the introduction of the leader/people distinction, and the increasing focus on the “bishop” as the one to whom submission must be given.

The third major capitulation occurred in the Fourth Century when the church was recognized as the central religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine, and granted special privileges by the State.

          From that time on, the relation of the Christian Church to secular           rulers, as well as the growth of the Church’s own secular power,           was bound to influence the development of the Christian religion           itself. (O’Grady, p. 73) 

Constantine: The Fusion of Church and State

Constantine was an opportunistic person. From AD 306 – 337 he was the leader of the Roman Empire. The evidence points to the fact that he saw in Christianity a way to hold his vast empire together.

          It is probable that Constantine became convinced that hope for           the future lay in the determination and orderliness of Christianity, and that he wanted to enlist its growing strength in     the service of the Empire. His aim in government was to preserve some form of unity, and it may have been partly for such reasons      of policy that he accepted the Christian religion. (O’Grady, p. 75)

For a number of years before Constantine took the throne, the bishops had been having heated squabbles over the person of Christ – was He of the same essence as the Father, or was there a time He did not exist? In response to this in-fighting, Constanine

          Needed Christianity to be doctrinally consistent and centrally           organized if it was going to help him hold together the vast empire           he had inherited. Hoping to create a strong sense of unity and           cohesion among his subjects, he summoned some three hundred           bishops . . . To a meeting in the Turkish city of Nicea. (Valantasis,   p. Xxii)

The Council of Nicea in AD 325 “formulated a credo, a pledge that all Christians could recite that affirmed their basic beliefs.” (Valantasis, p. Xxii)

It must be underscored what happened here. A powerful civil ruler is calling church leaders together, and putting heavy pressure on them to come up with a statement that will significantly contribute to the unity of a worldly empire. “After the Council of Nicea, the imperially sanctioned and militarily supported separation of Christians into two camps, heretical and orthodox, began.” (Valantasis, p. xxiv)

Of course, the unity Constantine tried to create at Nicea failed miserably. Nevertheless, he kept asserting his authority by intervening in church affairs in hopes of calming the theological storms.

          In his opinion, the Emperor, by virtue of his office, had the right    to intervene in such controversies and to preside over the councils           convened to settle them . . . . Constantine, himself, wanted to show           that, by virtue of his Imperial office, he was supreme in           ecclesiastical affairs, hoping thereby to mould the Church into an           instrument for consolidating the absolute power of the Emperor.           (O’Grady, p. 75)

The truth is, after the Council at Nicea there was a lot of confusion. Theological unanimity was a joke. Some exiled for their views were called back; some once viewed as heroes were exiled. All this had nothing to do with Christ. It was about raw power and control. HE THEM BY THEIR NECKS  SIR.

          Doctrinal and personal quarrels multiplied and the Emperor           intervened either to support or to exile the leaders of the           conflicting parties. Three years after accepting the decrees of the           Council of Nicea, Constantine changed his mind, recalled Arius           from exile and supported the anti-Nicene party until the end of his           reign. (O’Grady, p. 92)

Once the State was subsidizing the church, the power of the bishops kept expanding.

          By the time Christianity became the official religion of the    Empire, the power of the bishops had become enormous. In his          diocese the bishop commanded almost supernatural prestige; he   was the popular choice of the people and he now had official        powers of jurisdiction over his clergy, and over any other case   brought before him. Because the Church in the fourth century,           through this far-reaching power of the bishops, had become an           indispensable part of the social welfare of the State, it seemed at          times that it would even become an organ of the Imperial      Government. (O’Grady, p. 77)

So by AD 350 the original vision of Jesus Christ was totally abandoned, and had been replaced by a human organization calling itself “church,” which had jumped into bed with the State.MONEY LOVE,  “The Church was taking Roman organization, philosophy and jurisprudence into its service.” (O’Grady, p. 61)  The church had become a business, a bureaucracy, and was now consumed with preserving and perpetuating its religious accoutrements. As the Cardinal said to Christ in Brothers Karamazov, “We took from him, the wise and mighty spirit of the wilderness, what You rejected with scorn – Rome and the sword of Caesar.”

“Orthodoxy”

We hear the word “orthodoxy” and generally think, “that which is right (orthodox) in contrast to that which is wrong (heterodox).” But it is just not that simple. Remember, the primary impetus to have “Christianity doctrinally consistent and centrally organized” came from a self-aggrandizing emperor. Constantine presided at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Do you think the bishops could be objective about the issues before them with the Emperor sitting there? How many were exiled for giving the wrong answers?

An “Orthodoxy” in concrete was being formed by bishops as ecclesiastical power was being centralized in Rome more and more, and civil emperors shaped the agenda for the church. Those who questioned “orthodoxy,” or stood outside of it, found themselves facing many dangers.

          But, already in the fourth century, a persecuted Church had           turned persecutor. Those who disagreed with ‘orthodox’                teachings were stripped of their authority and exiled. In one           instance, when all persuasion had failed to bring the dissenters           back into the fold, Church and State joined to put them down by           force. These dissenters were the Donatists. (O’Grady, p. 79)

In the Fourth Century the Emperor had the upper hand in church affairs. It came to be a deadly assumption that the civil leader would take the helm in theological matters.

          So the institution by the Emperor of ecumenical councils was           considered to be the act not of a political leader, but of the leader   of the Christian people. The Emperor was automatically asked to           intervene in theological arguments. The general councils were           summoned and guided by imperial authority. (O’Grady, p. 90)

Wrangling with Words and Each Other

The visible church became a battle ground for one controversy after another. One Greek letter left in or omitted became the source of endless in-fighting. When the bishops should have put their hands over their mouths, they kept going on and on into areas of speculation to refute the “heretics.”

          The Greeks, who adopted the new religion, brought with them           their love of disputation and logical definition. (O’Grady, p. 89)           The attempt to combat Gnosticism with definitions was to give           rise to further definitions, and then to further arguments about           those definitions, and so to accusations and counter-accusations of           heresy . . . . But once the questions were raised and other           ‘heretics’ gave their response, it seemed that an official answer           had to be given. It may have been necessary to have definitions,           but it is possible that the very act of defining distorts the           understanding of that which lies beyond logic. (O’Grady, p. 33)

          In studying these controversies and the Councils that attempted to           settle them, it often seems that their endless dissentions,           condemnations and counter-condemnations were merely           theologians’ quarrels about the detailed use of words, and about           minute differences in the ‘expression of the inexpressible.’ St.           Hilary of Poitiers, writing to the Emperor Constantine           complained that “Every year, nay every moon, we make new           creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. CULT We  research that junk out here ,,done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom    we defended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in          ourselves or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing      one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s     ruin.” (O’Grady, p. 89)

It Was Always About Power and Control ,,coming back to our true faith..

With the increasing definition of “orthodoxy,” the “bishops demanded from their faithful” a “blind faith” and “mindless trust” (Valantasis, p. 126). From cradle to grave the dark cloud of the church hovered over them, packaged in seven “sacraments” and a labyrinth of other religious rituals and duties. Is it any wonder that when civil liberties emerged much later, people exited from the churches? Henri Nouwen made these pointed observations:

          When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left           the church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland,           and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes   to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity        is that its leaders constantly gave in to the temptation of power –    political power, military power, economic power, amen true fully corrupted !!!!!!or moral and           spiritual power – even though they continued to speak in the     name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied      himself and became as we are. We keep hearing from others, as         well as saying to ourselves, that having power – provided it is used   in the service of God and your fellow human beings – is a good thing.

With this rationalization, crusades took place; inquisitions were organized; Indians were enslaved; positions of great       influence were desired; episcopal palaces, splendid cathedrals, and opulent seminaries were built; and much moral manipulation of conscience was engaged in. Every time we see a major crisis in        the history of the church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh       century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense      secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a     major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim     to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus. (In the Name of       Jesus, pp. 75-77)

          Power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life. Jesus asks, “Do you love me?” We ask, “Can we sit at your right hand and your left in your Kingdom?” (In the Name of Jesus, p. 77)

          The long painful history of the church is the history of people ever and again tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led. (In the Name of Jesus, pp. 78- 79) well said for sure it is deeply immersed in the it’s poison sir..

          One thing is clear to me: The temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is feared. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire builders have been people unable to give and receive love. (In the Name of Jesus, p. 79)

An Example of “Outside the Box”

“Montanus was the male founder” of a movement, and he “began to prophesy in Phrygia, in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) sometime around 170 C.E.” (Valantasis, p. 100)

This “group of Christians who broke away from the main Church in the second half of the second century were the Montanists . . . . they sought a return to the purity of original Christianity, declaring that the rules governing the ethical behavior of Christians were not given through the authority of bishops and Church institutions, but by God alone, speaking through the inspired prophets . . . . His [Montanus] declared mission was to bring about a return to the simplicity of the early Church, and to announce the fulfillment of the prophecy of Pentecost.” (O’Grady, p. 60)

“Montanus called forth a vision of a church renewed – filled with the Holy Spirit, alive with fresh prophecy, and eagerly awaiting the imminent return of Christ.” (Valantasis, p. 100) “The Montanists . . . aimed at a freer, more emotional form of religion.” (O’Grady, p. 60)

Women fully participated in this movement. (Valantasis, p. 102) “Woman after woman, then man after man, would channel words from God, while the others listened attentively.” (Valantasis, p. 99)?

“The Montanists understood their new prophecy as a renewal movement for an increasingly decadent church.”(Valantasis, p. 101)

They did not challenge the main church’s sacramental and hierarchical system. (Valantasis, p. 102) “Their fervency for reform did not extend to their church’s structure,” and thus they ordained women and men as “deacons, presbyters (priests) and bishops.” (Valantasis, pp. 103, 102) “The famous North African Latin theologian Tertullian (160-225) converted to the movement and wrote energetically from a Montanist perspective.” (Valantasis, p. 105)?

My purpose here is not to defend or condemn what the Montanists practiced. Rather, it is to underscore that this “outside the box” group deeply disturbed those in power in the “orthodox” church. “Obviously the leadership of the church could not have people claiming to channel the divine voice directly . . . and so the Montanists eventually were excommunicated.” (Valantasis, p. 104) true they were ,

“Mysticism in an organization leads to a crisis of authority, and many of the internal disputes of the first three centuries of the Christian church concerned the problem of revelations.” (Fanning, p. 19)

“The reaction of the anti-Montanist Christians indicates that the mainstream of Christianity no longer experienced possession by the Holy Spirut as a normative feature of the faith . . . . The promise of the unmediated, indwelling divinity within the believer offered a means of bypassing the authority of the emerging hierarchy of bishops . . . . Moreover, the prominence of the prophetesses was considered to be unseemly by the male clergy.” (Fanning, pp. 20-21)

Church people had to be watchful of anything “that challenged in any manner the authority of the ecclesiastical leaders, or of its increasingly specific and narrowing orthodox faith.” (Fanning, p. 21)  As I.M. Lewis put it, “direct claim to divine knowledge is always a threat to the established order.” (Fanning, p. 21) true!!!

By the fourth century “there was a conflict between those who saw Christianity as a religion of the mind, a system of beliefs about God that was governed by the Scriptures, and those who saw Christianity as an experience of God.” the unchanged ones.(Fanning, p. 34).

The Montanists vividly illustrate what happened to any group in the future – like the Donatists -- who pursued things in a different way, outside of the “orthodox” hierarchy.

Did Christ Build This Mess?never  the ancient mysteries were enter the people were kept ignorant to just recently as the nature of the perversion taking place about truth,, into that was the toxin  that would produce the powerless estate you now see sir. cult mix sir is what quenches the spirit , Israel had to lean it as well as we are going to, out get saved by fall sleep in lethargic condition to their surroundings  no spirit warfare abilities other than  voting good Luck in the world of Hegelians  lies and state religions ....fs

I have given above a concise, condensed summary of some key characteristics of the post-apostolic church –

 **that bishops became very powerful, and submission to God was equated with submission to them; money

**that civil rulers became the controlling factor in church affairs;called stupid

**that a central church hierarchy and a doctrinal system called “orthodoxy” were put into place in order to control peoples’ lives;

**that those outside of the hierarchy and “orthodoxy” were viewed as “heretics” who were harassed and often killed; Satanism  with in, he is murderer, liar,as Jesus said he was and is,   sir Jesus does not murder his kids man does fs

**that in all these matters and more, what began when Christ came to the ekklesia in the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was long-lost after AD 150 in a growing ecclesiastical bureaucracy. they milked the people for money and their lives fs

Now I have a critical question for you to consider. But before the question, I want to set before you a little snapshot of “church life” in the fifth century.

          A Council was summoned at Ephesus in 431. The city mob demonstrated violently against the ‘opponents of the Mother of           God.’ The Emperor intervened, and, at one time during the roceedings, imprisoned both Cyril and Nestorius. Churchmen           condemned each other; the common people rioted; the Imperial           civil servants carried on intrigues between both     parties. Finally, [Emperor] Theodosius dismissed the Council saying, quite rightly, that it had failed to achieve reconciliation. But Nestorius himself was condemned as a heretic, deposed and exiled. (O’Grady, p. 103 a few saw deep lies , amen

Same today .

So “church” then consisted of Emperors changing their theological views pragmatically, depending on various circumstances, and “bishops changed sides according to who was Emperor.” (O’Grady, p. 106) Keep in mind that “three years after accepting the decrees of the Council of Nicea, Constantine changed his mind, recalled Arius from exile and supported the anti-Nicene party until the end of his reign.” (O’Grady, p. 92) it never stopped doing it either sir , still lie about it now... easy to do  when the masses are so institutionalized,  the ability to think for themselves is nill at best ...

The vital question is this: are you prepared to equate Christ’s words, “I will build My ekklesia,” with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformation churches? Do we really believe that Christ was the Architect of these Institutional Churches? Did He build these religious bureaucracies or did humans craving power and control?man sir purely man... sir and  in this case lost in  it...

I know this: Christ has always been building His ekklesia, but not in organizations that are intertwined with State power, not in organizations that depend on State support and backing for their existence, and not in organizations that murder people “outside the box” in Jesus’ name. amen we are free here sir.... few there be all that matters  what is with me is worth the purest gold  to come sir, Paul was such, I do miss him but he is free now,  our kingdom is not of this word either , we to will year for this day you shall be with me in paradise , 

What happened in AD 451 in those riotous mobs, in those theological fights, and in the Emperor’s presence at the Council was not Christ. It was flesh; it was control; it was power. 

Just because an institution calls itself “Church” does not mean it has anything to do with Christ. We need to come to terms with this reality. When Jesus builds something, it is Spirit, and it is Love. Further, Christ builds out of weakness, not fleshly power and control. As Nouwen put it so well –

INSIDE GODDESS EMPIRE

  That question????



 The world of self magic

The Cult of Positivity: If You Dream It, You Can’t Necessarily Become It

Robert Grant

Greatness. If you want it badly enough, and are willing to make some changes in your life to cause it to happen, you too can take over the world… or do anything else you really want to do. Yes, you really can have it all. The only things you’ll need to give up are assumptions, expectations, and the comfort zone that holds you back from greatness - Chris Guillebeau, Personal Development Blogger. 

This is the opening line from one of the most popular Personal Development blogs on the internet. It is called The Art of Non-Conformity and it is full of articles and essays about how you can ‘dominate the world’; this being a metaphor (I hope) for achieving success in some particular area of life. More generally, Personal Development blogs are the latest manifestation of the Self-Help genre; a genre that has been a steadily growing presence in western culture over the past 50 or so years. Originating in America, nearly all book shops now will have a dedicated self-help section (also known as Popular Psychology, or Mind, Body, Spirit), situated somewhere between – and often times overshadowing – the philosophy and psychology sections.

The internet is awash with blogs of a similar nature – a Google search results in 107 million results – each full of straight-to-the-point advice on how to live a fuller, better life, be a greater, wealthier, more successful you, free your mind from conformity and mediocrity and, ultimately, find happiness. Some popular titles of such books and blogs are:  The Power of Positive Thinking, The One Minute Millionaire, The Science of Getting Rich, Personal Development for Smart People, Meanttobehappy.com, Personalexcellence.com, to name a few.

While the quality and coherence of the message delivered by each individual book or blog does vary, it is worth noting that there are certain identifiable themes that run throughout this genre of self-improvement; themes that warrant some further scrutiny.

Certainly, the most central idea present within the genre is that success is a product of a positive attitude and enthusiastic determination. By adopting and maintaining such an attitude you can overcome all obstacles to ‘living your dreams’.

Pessimism has no place in improving the self, and critics should be avoided at all costs lest they infect you with a negative mind-set; this goes for negativity in the news and media also. If you can’t directly influence it, then you should not waste time and energy worrying about it, they say.

This notion of positivity is closely related to another major theme found within self-improvement: that of absolute personal responsibility. This is the idea that you, and you alone, are the author of your destiny and it is within your own power and control, regardless of circumstances, to make of life what you will. You should never blame others, or contingent circumstances for your failures: that is defeatist, negative and pessimistic, which are three qualities that seem to be anathema to the self-improvement ethos. = arrogance .

+

Self-help gurus and personal developers empower their readers to take control of their lives and make no excuses for failure. In Ireland, this line of thought is represented by Bill Cullen, whose response to a complex and systematic failing of our economic system was to tell people to “get up earlier, work harder, find more leads, do more networking”; an attitude that precludes the possibility of a discussion about systemic inequality, mismanagement, or whatever caused such a dramatic change in our economic culture.

Being a non-conformist is also very important to the Personal Development process. They say that the majority of people, live monotonous, obedient, orthodox lives: get up, rush a highly-processed breakfast, commute to work, spend 8 hours half-assing a job you hate, home, eat a microwave dinner/takeaway as the news tells them what’s wrong with the world, watch some crappy TV shows, then go to bed. To live this life is to be dead. Personal-development offers a way out of the herd, an opportunity to be freed from this slave-like obedience to the norms of the masses. By following some steps readers can think for themselves and control their futures.

So far, this description of self-help and personal development may seem, even if you don’t buy into it, relatively benign. The advice, on the surface, seems well-intentioned and may even encourage people do something worthwhile.

However, while it may seem honestly motivated, and, if not intellectually rigorous then at least harmless, there is something more disingenuous about the world of personal development than first meets the eye. It is based on a perception of reality that can lead to a life of self-obsessed illusion, phony friendships and frustration. Here is why.

Personal development plays on the idea that there is enough success, riches and fame for everyone, you just need the right get-up-and-go attitude. Given that all Personal Development offers is a possible attitude-change (as in no specific hard-skills), it makes sense that they would articulate a narrative where attitude is all you need.  Yet, the idea that with a positive attitude and enough determination, you can achieve anything is just simply not true, nor is it helpful. This message, however, is more than an inaccurate cliché. It is a dangerous mantra to adopt, for it puts people on a path to inevitable frustration.

It does this by robbing the individual of the possibility of having any organic and genuine sense of positive feeling. Instead, it becomes your job and a burden: always be positive. You maintain positivity in the hopes that success will follow. That is, underlying this mind-set is a real feeling of hope; hope that it will “work”, that this positivity will pay off. And as this hope builds and the results don’t appear, it can become extremely difficult to know how to deal with failure.

Look at The X Factor. This program, in the guise of a search for talent, shows people that, to begin with, are overflowing with positivity, enthusiasm and belief. Yet, as soon as they get kicked off, or criticized, they collapse hysterically and scatter their dignity all over the air waves. They subscribe to the following line of reasoning: “I’ve wanted this for so long and I’ve worked really hard. Therefore, I deserve it.” ‘Desire’ becomes synonymous with ‘deserve’. But wanting something really bad, and trying to get it, is no guarantee that you are owed success. There is nothing wrong with, or to fear in, genuinely trying your best, while knowing that failure is a possibility and really not the end of the world.

This is one side of the positive thinking/personal responsibility picture. Just as influential within Personal Development is a refusal to engage with anything or anyone that seems negative. I have read blogs that explicitly advise people to “only surround yourself with people who inspire you”. That is, avoid anyone, friends or family, who seems critical and/or negative of your desire to be all you can be. This is severely lacking in any kind of understanding of what a friend should be. It is, simply put, using others for your own gain, or as philosopher Immanuel Kant would put it, using people only as a means to an end. Surely a sense of humour, sincerity and kindness are valuable attributes in a friend, regardless of how inspiring or useful they are.

Interestingly, this anti-negative stance also doubles as a useful tool for disregarding critics and making it difficult to reject the teachings once you’ve made a commitment to them. In order to move past the superficial philosophy of Personal Development, you first need to examine and criticize it, but to do so would be to break the cardinal rule: be positive. This leads to a situation – that can be confirmed by going to any PD blog and scanning the comments – where bloggers become surrounded by fawning, sycophantic yay-sayers whose vocabulary is predominantly composed of flattering superlatives: awesome, kick-ass, amazing, inspiring, and so on. Surely it is better to surround yourself with critical and challenging people who have different perspectives than people who offer unconditional affirmation.

Many blogs strongly play to the idea that personal development is not for everyone. Here is a quote from The Art of Non-Conformity: “I should warn you now that this report is not for everyone.  In fact, it’s probably not for most people. Instead of writing for the general public, I spent about 35 hours writing these pages for a small minority of people interested in living life on their own terms”. He goes on to describe the “lonely road for those of us who choose to be remarkable. That path [of convention] is paved with safe lives, middle of the road monotony, and little chance of failure. But where’s the fun in being like everyone else?”
This kind of talk is nothing more than a marketing tool, designed to manipulate people by preying on their desire to seem different from, and smarter than, the ‘crowd’. It is exactly what ads for cars, runners, perfumes, aftershave, etc, do. Who wants to seem safe, mediocre, and unremarkable? Plus, do you think these bloggers will turn away subscribers if they become too main-stream? I doubt it, since they measure their success by how popular their blog is.
It reminds me of Lyle Lanley, the Monorail salesman in The Simpsons, who says, in a last-ditch effort to dupe Springfield, “Aw no, it’s not for you, it’s more of a Shelbyville idea”. To which Mayor Quimby responds: “Now wait just a minute! We’re twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville. You just tell us your idea and we’ll vote for it!”.
Being different for the sake of being different is as stupid as imitation for its own sake. Where your tastes lie with respect to the majority is certainly an interesting factor to take account of, but it should not form the basis for a decision. It is akin to strains of feminism that said it was ok to choose your own lifestyle, as long as that choice isn’t being a house-wife. 

Personal Development preaches about individual decision making and the pursuit of your own truth, but openly and explicitly vilifies the individual whose life’s journey happens to take the conventional path.
By creating a narrative of Us Vs Them, Personal Development fosters a divisive atmosphere: the free versus the enslaved. Again, things are just not that simple. There are many factors that go into why people end up where they are, not all of which are laziness and non-thinking. If someone gets into personal development and quits their 9-5, to travel the world, the very best of luck to you, but there is no need to insult millions of people who don’t make that choice while you do it by referring to them as “zombies”.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with becoming a vegan or running a marathon, but these are just arbitrary decisions people make every day. Do a sky-dive, don’t do a sky dive. Drink alcohol, don’t drink alcohol. Learn a language, don’t learn a language. These are normal, natural choices, not life-defining, earth-shattering, momentous acts of courage.
Regardless of the criticisms I have given, however, Personal Development and Self Help remain extremely popular, with literally millions of followers. It is of course possible I just don’t get it and am missing out. But the question remains: why do so many people, from all different walks of life, buy into it?
Here is why.
Personal Development and Self Help offer a convenient, easy, and well-marketed answer to a very deep and genuine philosophical crisis human beings have been living through more or less since the Middle Ages. It is really an existentialist crisis that concerns the fundamental question: What should we do with our lives?

The psychologist and social theorist, Erich Fromm – in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre – calls this crisis the “fear of freedom”. From argues that the history of modern Europe and America is defined by its effort to gain freedom from the political, economic and spiritual shackles that traditionally bound humans. Since the Renaissance, one tie after another was severed – humans had overthrown the domination of the Church and the domination of the absolutist monarchy state. I

n their place, the principles of economic liberalism, political democracy, and religious autonomy gave expression to the longing for freedom and brought mankind closer to its realization. This kind of abolition of external domination seemed to be a great victory for personal freedom.

However, while such freedoms resulted in the possibility for more individual expression and autonomy, they also broke the ties that gave people security and meaning. Ties that gave people feelings of belonging and of being rooted somewhere: the membership of a primitive man with his clan, the medieval man with his church and so on. So while humanity, at least in Europe and America, has become freer in this sense, this freedom brings with it a new challenge: to orient and root oneself in the world, to find security and meaning without external authority.
We now have choice: the choice to live life in whatever way we like. This is a daunting task. And when we realize the size of the universe and of the strength of the forces that shape our world – the unpredictable markets, constant war, environmental disasters – it can lead to feelings of powerlessness, isolation and anxiety. Not to mention the feelings of isolation created by modern consumerism and advertising that, as Banksy put it, makes us feel “that all the fun is happening somewhere else.”

It is this sense of anxiety that Self-help and Personal Development movements exploit. In the face of such powerlessness and insignificance, they sell omnipotence and domination; complete control of your destiny. And if you disagree, or demand more than “7 steps to success” you are ostracised as a negative critic. Self help is popular because it manipulates this fear of freedom and does so with brightly coloured, user friendly blogs and a cheery enthusiastic and attractive smile. But rather than hoping to find answers in Personal Development, it should only be a starting place.

To ask questions about how to live life, to question whether you should be doing what you are doing, is indeed admirable. But to conclude that a positive attitude can solve all problems is naive and denies the possibility to enact change, when necessary, on your circumstances. Aristotle said:

“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy; so that to do these things properly is rare, praiseworthy and noble”.

The same goes for having a positive attitude, or any state of mind, for that matter: the skill in life is to know when and where they are appropriate.

 years  truly uncle hocus pocus !!!

http://environment-ecology.com/religion-and-ecology/276-gaia-worship-the-new-pagan-religion.html  

A new movement  from the house of Casper !!! ..... what’s next  wow !! when perdition  sets  there no stopping the imagination,  and profits,   self made gods ,   Ephesian world is back. 

 Nt read Ephesians